![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
a continuation
... of this.
For values of "not as bad" that include "vastly better in every measurable way."
Yeah, having your house uprooted by bulldozers and your children killed is vastly better. And that wall Sharon is building is a surefire crowd pleaser. I'll tell you what: i'll soften my stance on Israel once they stop disobeying UN resolutions. I mean, that's one of the things that got Iraq in hot water, yeah?
Having interests in a region hardly equates to an alliance. We send Egypt billions in foreign aid each year also, but nobody would suggest they're an ally.
That hasn't been the impression i've gotten. As far as i know, Hosni Mubarak has been tight with US presidents for years now.
That's nonsense. Germany wasn't a democratic state at the beginning of 1945, but democracy took off pretty well once its facist leadership was forcibly removed from power. Ditto for Japan, and Spain.
OK, here's your "apples to oranges" badge. Good job. Japan is probably the best comparison here, and it took two fuckin' nukes to break them. You wanna go for that now?
What, in your view, makes the Arabs inferior in this regard? On what basis do you claim they're "not ready" for democracy, as opposed to simply being enslaved in a social structure which prevents it?
That's pretty much it in a nutshell. And if you think that our aggression is going to free them from that social structure, you're very deluded. But, hey, we can just kick back and see how our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan bear fruit in the next 10 or 20 years.
Here, I'll rephrase: If you're right and they're not read for the 21st century, that would seem to make it all the more important from preventing them from obtaining weapons of horribly destructive power.
Then maybe we shouldn't SELL IT TO THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE, DICKHEAD.
Jingoistic cultural snobs? You're the one saying those brown folk aren't ready for modern governments, and I'm the cultural snob?
You're the one who called them "thuggish" and "medieval" (not to mention "brown folk"). You're trying to enforce, through violence, a culture that you consider superior on other people; you're a cultural snob.
no subject
It turns out that the creation of the states of Israel and Palestine was a mistake, for a lot of complex reasons, that people now tend to characterize as the debate over "the right of return" and "the right of Israel to exist." But 50 years later, it is not one we can easily undo.
Israel argues that it is only protecting itself, but there is no evidence that this is working. To the contrary, Israel is the least safe place to be a Jew in the western world; and the more that Sharon ratchets up the violence, the less safe it becomes.
Palestine is a mess. In part because of misplaced loyalty to Yassir Arafat, who, to be gentle, has not been a competent leader. In part because Israel has, for 50 years, systematically worked to destabilize and undermine Palestine. The US's tendency to ignore Israeli excesses and to reward Israel's "cooperation" has contributed unfavorably to this situation -- and thus to the negative view of the US held by the Arab world.
US foreign policy has failed in the Middle East for the same reason it failed in Africa, and before that in South America. This is not a product of a few administrations, it is a flaw in the character of US foreign policy. The US sees "third world" countries as sources of resources to be exploited. It props up evil governments because they are willing participants in that exploitation. Eventually, for one reason or another, those governments get out of hand and the US finds itself with an "ally" that is really an enemy, and a subjugated population that blames, in part, the US for proping up the government.
That the current administration was unable to recognize that the current situation in Iraq was the inevitable consequence of its invasion speaks of an incompetence that borders on criminal.
The irony is that there are those in the US who understand this, and who understand how to use the free market, and foreign aid to effectively introduce stable democratic government into countries. These were the people behind the Marshall Plan, who understood not only that WW-II was, in large part, a punitive consequence of the punative nature of the treaty of Versais, but also understood that democracy takes many forms, and that Germany, Italy, and Japan had to each be treated seperately, and distinctly. (We were two for three, by the way. West Germany and Japan effectively made the transition. Italy did not. Spain was not one of the principle targets of the Marshall plan, and only recently has begun to emerge as a democratic country.)
Consider this: Egypt and Saudi Arabia have repressive governments that are, in part, propped up by the US, but that are not US allies. Where did the terrorists for 9/11 come from?
The action of the US government after WW-II went a long way towards alleviating the problems in Europe. The action of the US government after 9/11 is going a long way to exacerbate the problems in the Middle East.
no subject
no subject
I think the problem is that the gay culture is just so damned DIFFERENT.
I think the problem is that the hispanic culture is just so damned DIFFERENT.
I think the problem is that the jewish culture is just so damned DIFFERENT.
Yep, it works.
no subject
The world gets smaller
Re: The world gets smaller
Crusades
So what's different now?
Well, religious perspective is a big one - the sephardim, the biblical jews, are a minority in Israel - and second class citizens. The Ashkanazi (descended of the Khazars - essentially, Europeans) are the big shareholder now.
The U.S. has a rise in righteous Christanity, which is so wrong on so many levels that I'd write a book about it, save the fact that my house would be firebombed by a christian who makes his living in the field of animal husbandry, yet denies evolution. (okay, I'm a little biased, i admit it). But they feed the ideal that the holy land must be preserved from the infidels - a big theme in the crusades, as you may recall.
And of course, the US government houses conquerors, like any government does.
But what to do? Can anyting be done?
no subject
Of course, whether that's always the case is a different matter.
Off subject, but still relevant
Harry S. Truman is a war criminal. Japan had surrendered. Repeatedly. But you see, it wasn't unconditional surrender, as they had an interest in their lifes past the war.
"If only Truman had taken the advice of his top advisors, such as Joseph Grew, the former ambassador to Japan, he would have dropped the unconditional surrender proviso, ensured the continuity of Japan's imperial dynasty, and negotiated an end to the war."
I guess I needn't mention the Japanese internment camps. We'll be revisiting that any minute now with Arab Americans.
Okay, so we don't play fair, or evenly. So why play the ethics game at all? Why not just shout "manifest destiny", and bulldoze the world? Or do you suppose that would cause people to get off their asses and do something?
Re: Off subject, but still relevant
Okay, so we don't play fair, or evenly. So why play the ethics game at all?
We're the best the world's got. Partly because we debate the correctness of our actions endlessly.
Re: Off subject, but still relevant
As far as being the best the world's got - that's pretty jingoistic. How about Sweden? or Denmark? France? The United Kingdom? Or Canada? How about Switzerland? Oh, what about Japan? Oh, here's a good one - Bahrain. They're all pretty damn good.
Even if you believe that we are the so all and end all of government and foreign policy, it's seems fair to say that we could still be better. Significantly better. Visibly better. I'm not talking about invention - I'm talking about morals and ethics that have been established for hundreds (and in some cases thousands) of years. Certain principles - altruism, egalitarianism, fair play, justice - even compassion - things that we preach, we don't practice. That's what I'm on about - sure, we'll continue to screw up, but one would hope that the screw ups are inadvertant, not intentional.
I'll agree that we have more mobility - socially, financially, etc. This is a land of exceptional priviledge. I sincerely belief that the reason things are THE WAY THEY ARE in this country is that the majority of people have a lifestyle that would make them practically royalty in most other countries. It's easy to sit back and watch the world go by - odds are, you personally will be unaffected by any but the most major disasters. And why would you do something that might lessen your personal empire? I mean, I could volunteer at a soup kitchen, but I've got a Nintendo, for chrissakes.
But there is no excuse for political apathy. We grouse about the hows and whys, but how have you (the rhetorical you) changed the way things are done? Is voting enough?
It's a big mess. And who's to blame? Well, if Democracy works the way we claim it does, it's on you and me.
This is on my mind lately, but I'm not sure it's true: Does the two party system keeps our country at war with itself? Clinton reduces the deficit, and Bush wages war to the tune of umpteen billion.
Re: Off subject, but still relevant
Only if you consider all things done in war criminal. It's a defensible viewpoint, but not one I share.
Especially if they surrender first
They didn't surrender, now did they? Not on the US's terms. They were trying to negotiate a surrender that would allow the underlying cause of their militaristic aggression to survive; that wasn't acceptable. They wanted to set terms, and were in no position to dictate them. That lesson had to be taught in one of two ways -- nuking them or invading the Home Islands. Nuking was the less costly option, measured in human lives.
As far as being the best the world's got - that's pretty jingoistic.
It is not. It is flatly accurate.
How about Sweden? or Denmark? France? The United Kingdom? Or Canada? How about Switzerland? Oh, what about Japan? Oh, here's a good one - Bahrain.
How many carrier groups do they have? In billions, how much foreign aid do they give? How much freedom does a citizen of any of those countries have? By all measures, they fall short. Not by a lot, in some cases -- the UK is a strong ally that still remembers how to carry the White Man's Burden (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/Kipling.html) -- but yes, the US is still the world's last, best hope.
Certain principles - altruism, egalitarianism, fair play, justice - even compassion - things that we preach, we don't practice.
There is no room for altruism in the Hobbesian environment of international politics, though it's a fine thing among individuals. Egalitarianism requires the existence of peers -- we're egalitarian with the UK, for instance, and even France, though they currently oppose us. But there is no point of equality with governments like Cuba or North Korea or Libya, while their people groan under a yoke. Justice? The first great law is the right of self defence. Thwarting aggressive actions intended to kill you is eminently just. Compassion? Who gives more to the world, both government largesse and the private charity of individual citizens?
I sincerely belie(ve) that the reason things are THE WAY THEY ARE in this country is that the majority of people have a lifestyle that would make them practically royalty in most other countries.
Yes, and that lifestyle was made and kept so by the suffering and death of our fathers, whose faces we seem bent on forgetting.
no subject
The governments of Cuba and North Korea and Libya ARE our peers, regardless of their scumminess. In order to achieve progress between our nations, we need to start by treating them as peers instead of as disgusting and inferior.
no subject
Both, of course. They do not conflict. Charity freely given is an excellent measure of a nation's commitment to helping others. The Hobbesian environment is one between governments -- i.e., I should not expect France to do something that isn't in its national interest, and my government doesn't act in ways that don't further its own national interests. Foreign aid has a lot of benefits for the US.
The governments of Cuba and North Korea and Libya ARE our peers, regardless of their scumminess.
In no way. Our government speaks for our people; Castro's government speaks only for Castro. Kim Jong-il's government appears to speak for Moony the Moonbat.
no subject
Until the people object to the rule of tyrants, the tyrants effectively speak for the people. You can't ignore the tyrants and try to talk to his people directly.
Also, i think Kim Jong-Il's hair does the talking.
Word, man
no subject
*Ding*
Re: Word, man
no subject
In the specific case we're talking about now, I don't think we're doing a stellar job of imposing it successfully, but I don't think it's going abysmally. But that's really a separate discussion from the underlying-principles one.
no subject
Eradicating aggression is easier said than done, especially when you consider how widespread the "America == Great Satan" attitude is. You say, "successfully imposing my own culture is an optimal way to prevent recurrence," but i'd disagree with "optimal" — you're saying we should put the entire Muslim world to the sword. That doesn't jibe with any definition of "optimal" i can find.
As you say, we're not doing a stellar job, and while "abysmal" might be an exaggeration, i'd say it's closer to abysmal than ideal.
no subject
Fair enough, and that's not really my position. I prefer my imperialism spreading through cultural means, like media and other entertainment products. But it's a slow process, and in some specifically spelled out contexts, we can't afford to wait.
you're saying we should put the entire Muslim world to the sword
I never said any such thing, and never will. I'm sorry that's what you see in my position. There is a specific, narrowly addressable, highly inimical and malicious set of beliefs that come from a particular cross-pollination of traditional Arabic culture and a sect of Islam (though arguably it's no longer Islamic at all), Wahhabism, that started in the early 19th century. That particular twisting of Islam -- cursory examination of Islamic history and tenets will reveal how strongly heterodox Wahhabism is with pretty much all the other Islamic sects -- will not stop attacking the Western world.
We can't stay on defense all the time, partly because any effective defense requires an unacceptable surrender of freedoms, and partly because even an effective defense can be penetrated in time. The best way to maintain both safety and freedom is to stop the attacks from being launched in the first place, and if the people trying to kill us will not desist, then their will and ability to fight must be crushed utterly.
It pretty much comes down to:
All these choices suck, but we gotta pick one.
no subject
It seems to me that one way to make things easier on us is to stop provoking the Muslim world with our arrogant behavior (not to mention our irrational support of Israel). That is, if we were actually and truly acting in self-defense, then we should have the moral high ground. But it's obvious we aren't. Afghanistan was defensible, even ignoring our grievous lack of follow-through. Iraq is not, and it's getting worse.